1995-10-18 - Re: Anonymity: A Modest Proposal

Header Data

From: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: ddcd0038b6652eedda459d75a24bf809201aa879368c9c25476fa2429f5becfb
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9510181440.A93842-0100000@aix2.uottawa.ca>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9510181314.C103772-0100000@aix2>
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-18 18:11:00 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 11:11:00 PDT

Raw message

From: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 11:11:00 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Anonymity: A Modest Proposal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9510181314.C103772-0100000@aix2>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9510181440.A93842-0100000@aix2.uottawa.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Wed, 18 Oct 1995 I wrote:

> It seems to me that receiving messages through newsgroups (sent through 
> remailernet) and having them retrieved automatically by your newsreader
> might be a better method of defeating traffic analysis. Sounds like Vinge's

Nah. I'll take it back. Send encrypted through usenet, receive 
encrypted through usenet. Best of both, but very slow and only good for 
voluntary mail reception. You could also have an agent doing this 
scanning for msgs and posting unencrypted (or send mail to an  
unwitting spam victim). While it protects all but the last mailer almost 
completely, it's far slower than remailernet and only protects against 
traffic analysis.





Thread